I'm sure this tariff will suit some customers, but I'm sticking with the original (what I have just now). Having the potential to be cutoff does not appeal to me.
The blog posts are interesting and I disagree with some of RevK's rebuttals to suggestions, specifically the lack of the night time special period between 2 and 6am. I still think this should exist.
Also, there's talk on the blog about whether customers should be "slowed down" or forced to "pay up" (for more usage credits). If they go the "slowed down" route, this then begs the question of whether AA can slow down customer connections their side during peak 9-5pm hours, weekdays, on standard tariffs like mine (upon request of the customer). I already do this artificially my side, but not everyone has the equipment their side to do this. If they offered that feature, it would certainly prevent customers clocking up outrageous usage units during peak hours, where most non-techy users fail to realise exactly how many credits a 1080p YouTube video can chomp through during peak hours.
Having said all that, I respect RevK's point with this new tariff - that it is supposed to be simple and easy to understand. 25, 100 or 200 Gb a month, for X pounds a month, is something most people understand, and inline with how other ISPs (who offer capped services) charge, like Zen (for example).
I shall watch with interest as to how the trial pans out.
EDIT: Also, unless I'm missing something, £25/month for 25Gb/month seems a bit expensive. Zen are doing 20Gb/month for £18.37 a month (inc vat) and 200Gb/month for £35.74 a month (inc vat). AA on the same allowance would be £45/month (£10 more expensive). Why such a difference?
Edited by mixt (Sat 24-Nov-12 02:39:24)